Bob you still haven't thought this idea through any further, its a terrible idea. I'll explain why but its probably going to be a bit long but bear with me and you'll understand why you are 'dead' wrong.

So "Bob's Law" is now in effect, Mr Bandito is in the back of a Taxi committing an armed robbery demanding the taxi driver hand over his money and valuables. Mr Bandito notices that the taxi driver has been getting looks at him in the rear view mirror. While the driver is nervously fumbling and trying to pull out the wallet he is sitting on in his back pocket, it crosses Mr Bandito's mind that "Bob's Law" is in effect and as soon as the driver hands him the wallet over Mr Bandito shoots and kills the taxi driver.

Mr Bandito did this because the punishment (death) is the same for robbing the driver as it is for murdering the driver. An alive taxi driver would make it easier for the police to catch him and Mr Bandito is of the same propensity as the folks that passed this law and so to him it now makes sense to kill all witnesses of an armed robbery as procedure, as the penalty is the same either way.

Well then yes, we respectfully disagree.
As I saw it, she had already aggressively touched him with his back turned, and then raised her fists as if to hit him again, so he could easily think he had to strike to keep from being hit again.
I wouldn't say it's the 'right' thing to do, I would say it's an acceptable thing, but I certainly agree it's on the 'wrong' end of that spectrum of acceptability.
Mr Miaggi was right, the best way to win a fight is to not be in one....but that's not within everyone's capability. No training coupled with lack of self control makes that impossible for some. They are not bad people because they lack those skills, IMO, and they have a right to their imperfect reactions up to a clearly legally defined point without being told that, because they didn't do the best thing, they did the wrong thing.
You are free to think differently, I don't need to agree with you 100% to like you.

What kind of douche drives a six-figure car and thinks it's a good idea to make a few bucks on the side stiffing hard-working taxi drivers out of their income?

I hope some drunk pukes all over his back seat.

I thought that at first as well because he catches it too low to be an accident... but it appears to me that the cube is solved when it is in the air before he catches it. Perhaps he performs some sort of switch behind his back...but if anything that makes the execution all the more impressive. Perhaps he partially solves the cube behind his back and finishes it after the catch? argh I DONT KNOW its fucking buttery.

Maybe he is actually magic.

I've watched much of the clip at 1/4 speed and learned a little. SPOILER ALERT.

The marker vanishes are now definitely obvious. The first time he slips it into his vest. The second time he flips it to the back of his fingers then drops his hand behind him and discards it.





So, the vest definitely does come into play a lot. He also pushed a card into the lower opening in his vest at about 3:45 while misdirecting by spinning a card in his other hand.



That's all good and fine, but other things are not simple sleight of hand.

At 5:10 with his back turned he shows us the signed card with the hand behind his back. Then in full view he simply turns the card against his back. Then his other hand raises up from the other side of his body to reveal the "same" signed card. (The one that was in view, btw, he tucks up into his vest at this point, keeping in hand the blank that was paired with it.) The only possible explanation for the same card being in two places at once is there must be multiple copies of each signed card, which means he has stooges who sign the exact same way every time or he has a technological advantage like others have mentioned (tiny scanner and printer).

The other thing that confounds is how he has a signed card in one hand and a stack of cards in the other. Then in full view the tall stack shrinks down to (approximately) one card and the single card grows into a stack instantaneously. I guess there must be some kind of technological solution to this as well, but I don't know how a functional stack of cards (and not just the appears of a stack of cards) could collapse and appear... unless they aren't functional and it's a trick deck that can easily expand or shrink to look like a deck or single card.

At 6:00 when he just shakes the bag and the signed card inside changes to the other signed card, I think he just flips the bag around with his shake motion and that the single card is printed on the front with one signature card and the other signature card on the back.

That's the only thing that makes sense... which again requires a special scanner and printer setup... I guess.

Basically he got tore up by a grizzly, managed to climb on it's back and start knifing it to death, and then fell to the ground when his companions finished it with rifles. The leader figured he was dead soon, so he told the other two guys to bury him when he died and catch up after.

The history is a bit muddled on whether they got scared by Indians or just stole his stuff and left, but either way they took all of his gear and hoofed it. When they caught up, they told the leader that he had died.

So Hugh came to, with no gear, covered in a fresh bear skin they had taken off the bear. He was suffering from a broken leg, the cuts on his back exposing bare ribs, and all his wounds festering. He was 200 miles from the nearest fort, with nothing to help him and surrounded by hostile Indians.

He crawled, surviving on roots, berries, and remains of animal kills. His back became gangrenous, so he lay on a rotten log and let maggots eat the dead and rotten tissue away. Later he was found by a friendly tribe that sewed the bear skin to his back to cover his exposed ribs and gave him some supplies. When he finally reached the Cheyenne river, he fashioned a crude raft and floated down the river to the fort.

Everyone thought he had died, but he recovered fully. Later he decided he would avenge himself on the two that left him behind, but he spared one because he was too young and one because he had joined the army and was kind of untouchable. The young guy was Jim Bridger, who became a famous mountain man himself as he got older.

This is awesome

Magicians will go to amazing lengths to get a trick to work. However, the key part to just about all tricks is distraction. Not just to make you look away when a clever switch is made, but a well designed trick is a distraction in itself. It'll make you think that the amazing thing happening is one thing when in fact the amazing thing already happened when you didn't know amazing things were happening and now it's making the faux amazing thing look even more amazing!

Your idea with the ink disappearing on the card is a great example. You're trying to work out how the card ends up blank when he put the signed card on the table when the signed card was never put on the table. The card on the table is blank simply because he put a blank card on the table. The switch had already been made and you're looking for a solution to something that was never a problem

Magicians prey on you assumptions, and they're brazen, and a lot more skilled than you'd think. You won't work a lot of the stuff out because you'll think the way it's done is impossible, that no one could actually do what the magician is doing. Fan some cards out in front of someone and ask them to pick one at random. A good card magician can force you to pick a certain card and you'd never suspect it. I'm given to believe that Paul Daniels can do this behind his back. It's not easy to do and most people don't believe it's possible, so if you can do it you're performing the miracle at the very start. Everything after that seems incredible. You're looking for a trick that's already happened.

I love magic. I love being fooled. I enjoy the challenge of working out how things are done and wish I had the time to learn to do it properly.

I don't know. Seems to me he kept resisting.

Initially the cops weren't just attacking him while he laid on the ground. They were obviously trying to get him to lay on the ground and kept yelling at him to put his hands behind his back and he wasn't complying.

Obviously the number of cops in action may be excessive, but this doesn't look like a typical (nowadays) free-for-all where they're just going to town on a guy because they're excited.

"When he was stopped by the police officer, Tyree obeyed and got off of his bike and spoke with the officer. The officer then proceeded to put Tyree’s hands behind his back before four policemen were suddenly on top of him."

Really? Where is this part of the video? Why do we never get to see this part?

Except that's it's not my assessment, it's the Mexican government's assessment.
EDIT: When the Federall'es (SP? Mexican police) say your cops are out of control, it's time to take another look.

It seemed to me that the guy was a belligerent drunk, who at one moment complies (standing with his hands on head), then turns to argue, tugs on his shirt collar (in a failed attempt to show he's unarmed, or telling the cop to shoot him there?) and shuffles slowly towards the cop. If he was trying to suicide by cop, he did it in a way that made it look totally unthreatening to me. No quick movements, hands on head, no weapon, no threats, no fists...where's the threat in a slow moving unarmed suspect?

I agree, once he was in arms reach and still advancing, he's a threat...but you must completely ignore the cop's ability to move away to make the killing in any way justified. The cop had every opportunity to keep safe distance by simply moving away slowly...why didn't he? Stand Your Ground?
EDIT:Or, the cop had the opportunity to close his car door and lock it, making him 100% safe against the unarmed drunk until backup arrived 20 seconds later.

I didn't see it that way, I (and others, including the officials in the Mexican government) saw a drunk, acting inappropriately, being belligerent when he sees the gun pointed at him and asking the officer "You gonna kill me?", to which the officer replies "no, I'm not going to kill you", then reports on the radio "He's saying 'kill me'". He did not say "Kill me.", he said "Are you GOING to kill me?" as I heard it.
I never saw him reach UNDER his shirt, only tug at the collar of his shirt, and at one point turn around and put his hands behind his back touching his shirt (but NEVER under his shirt). I don't know where that idea came from (except maybe from the cop's statement), please watch again.
I think if an unarmed man slowly advancing on you with hands on his head is a 'deadly threat to the officer's safety', we have HUGE problems, because that theory makes it legal to shoot anyone that comes near them....they don't know if they're armed and attacking, or just passing by, right?
Cops are supposed to de-escalate problems, not exacerbate them.

As for the 'murder' designation...if a citizen shot this man in the exact same circumstances, he should face murder charges. I don't give people a pass on homicide based on their job.

I'm pleased for you. My experience has differed. I was charged at 16, and again at 18, for minor personal amounts, well under a gram the first time.
I also have had 18 cops surround my car to drag a single meek 90 lb 16 year old kid off to jail for .2 grams of weed in his back pack (about 1 bong hit of dust) in California... and he was in for 4 months (his parents insisted). They had to search SO hard to find anything to get him for, they were obviously intent on taking him. (Oddly, they let me go on my way with 3 bongs, 5 pipes, and 15 empty schnapps bottles in my car....I was 17.)
I've also been ticketed for drawing a 4" long line of sidewalk chalk on a sidewalk. That cost over $200, for using the product as intended in front of my own home.
My brother, on the other hand, had a 16th birthday party with 300 kids and 12 kegs, and my dad hired the Houston police as 'security' to 1.stop drunks from driving away and 2. stop other cops from busting the party (that's how it was done in the 80's, pay them and they look the other way...probably still applies)
It's nice to hear about reasonable cops existing, I just seem to not run into any.

If it were left to the moderates - and you are not one, you are the other extreme - then change would never happen, because no one would be angry enough. How far would the abuse have to go, how rife would it have to be, before you got angry enough to try and change it? During the height of racism in america, you would have wondered why the million man march was necessary given that you never had any problems on your traffic stops.

I have read comments from newt praising the actions of the police when they act in ways which deserve praise.

Yet you - you never seem to rule out that a beating is unacceptable. You always add the caveat "maybe he wasn't putting his hands behind his back," (or similar) but in the same breath claim that you've never been in that situation. Perhaps if you had, you would understand that the human survival instinct is not something that can be turned off when you are being attacked.

Do you honestly, even in your closeted, warped and twisted mind, think that you can kick and punch someone in the face UNTIL they put their hands behind their back? You are excusing them on the basis that they make an impossible demand and the demand is not met.

Your guarantee is worthless, on what authority do you make it!? You have a pathetically ignorant world view in which if it works for you, it works for everyone - damn the evidence, and damn those who it doesn't work for. If your traffic stops went without a hitch, then all these videos of psychopaths in uniform are outliers and don't need to be dealt with. You're an excuse maker and an apologist for violent, dangerous individuals who are given exceptional power which they abuse.

Unless some people get angry about it, nothing will change, because people like you will always find a justification for them, and that's more reason to get angry.

Awful lot of hyperbole in some of these comments, especially from the poster, cop-hater newtboy.

The cops appear to be beating this guy w/o much cause, and that's illegal and improper. But newtboy seems to think every arrest is carried out this way.

To repeat myself, 700,000 arrests are made every year in the US. I can't predict what percentage involve illegal violence, but I can't imagine it being anywhere near even 1%.

What we can't tell by the video is whether the perp is refusing to comply by not putting his hands behind his back, etc, which would certainly justify some physical act by the cops to get compliance.

I agree that from the looks of it, it does appear to be illegal violence. But 10 deputies were suspended, so due process is being followed.

As for me, I've never been arrested. I've gotten traffic tickets, but never once did I give the officer any shit and never once was I treated unfairly. Your mileage may vary. But if you behave yourself, you are pretty much guaranteed to be left alone by the police.

They probably didn't exactly know what they were dealing with and errored on the side of caution. If I were them, I'd have patted him on his back (but given him a free shirt to put on) and sent him back to his seat.